Talk:St. John's Park/Archive 1

Archive 1

Holland Tunnel?

Those are I-78's exits. The Holland Tunnel exit is over thataway. Five little tunnels don't branch off the big tunnel. The way it reads now, it can be confusing. Epicgenius (talk) 21:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but aren't I-78 and the Holland Tunnel essentially the same thing in Manhattan? I-78 extends less than 1 mile on the surface of Manhattan and exists solely to provide access to the Holland Tunnel (which is part of I-78). Pburka (talk) 22:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they are concurrent – but there are also two separate articles. These exits, from I-78 coming from the Holland Tunnel, can be confused with the exit portal itself; so, I'd edited it. Epicgenius (talk) 22:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The Holland Tunnel may well be designated I-78 (although I'm not at all certain the designation doesn't stop at the beginning of the Tunnel in Jersey City), but no one in New York knows that, or cares, except for some people obsessed with road trivia. The exits are known as the exits from the Holland Tunnel. No one ever says "When you come out of I-78 in Manhattan, take Exit 2", because no one would understand what they were saying. What they say is "When you come out of the Holland Tunnel, take Exit 2". Calling them "I-78 exits" instead of "Holland Tunnel exits" is total pedantry, and also violated WP:COMMONNAME.

Contrary to the contention here, there are no other exits from the tunnel except these. BMK (talk) 22:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

When you come through the portal of the tunnel, you may well technically no longer be in the tunnel, but you have not "exited" anywhere, because THE ONLY PLACE YOU CAN GO TO GET ANYWHERE IS TO THE HOLLAND TUNNEL EXITS. Calling them I-78 exits is ridiculous, and if you were a driver, you would know that. (The "exit" which looks like it's on Canal Street on a map is, in fact, a seperate road, divided from Canal with a nigh wall, and lower than Canal. It is not an "exit" onto Canal Street.) BMK (talk) 22:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The Commissioners' Plan of 1811, which mapped out the streets of Manhattan, designated several spots as open space, including Union Square, Tompkins Square Park, Madison Square Park and Marcus Garvey Parks; in general, early plans allotted more space for these sites than what was finally built. Also, some parks that once existed were eventually eliminated. One, an ornate and elegant square known as Hudson Square or St. John's Park, appeared on Manhattan maps as early as 1797 and existed at what is now the southern exit of the Holland Tunnel until the City sold the land to Cornelius Vanderbilt, who built the Hudson River Railroad Freight Depot there in 1867. [1] BMK (talk) 22:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

As opposed to the northern exit, which is actually the entrance?

And yes, there is an exit to Canal Street. It's called Exit 5, and the sign reads "to Canal Street". The portal is south of Canal and Hudson; that's an approximation. You actually should know that. Epicgenius (talk) 22:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

But that exit is not AT THE PORTAL, it is part of the roundabout exits, which you've never seen except in Google Maps pictures, because yuou don't drive. BMK (talk) 22:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The literal exit of the tunnel is at the portal, and these exits are outside the portal. I'm not partaking in the cracks about failure to drive. Yes, I pass by there very often. Epicgenius (talk) 12:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

But it's wrong to say that I-78 is unsigned, either, so not "no one" every says "I-78" – GPSs do. Epicgenius (talk) 22:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

How about a compromise: The interior of the square is now inaccessible, surrounded by exit roads from Manhattan's Holland Tunnel. This clarifies that they're not actually tunnel mouths, and avoids confusing people about the I-78 designation (which barely exists in Manhattan). Pburka (talk) 22:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Works for me. It could even say "Holland Tunnel (I-78)". BMK (talk) 22:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Tangentially, it seems a bit odd to assign ownership of the tunnel to Manhattan. Surely Jersey City has as much claim to the tunnel, and it's operated by the interstate PANYNJ. Pburka (talk) 23:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

You're right, but where does it say that? I didn't see it in a quick look. BMK (talk) 23:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

On closer inspection, it only says it in my awkward proposed rewording. I inadvertently expanded possession from the exits to the whole tunnel. My proposal should read: "The interior of the square is now inaccessible, surrounded by exit roads from the Holland Tunnel." Pburka (talk) 23:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the second proposal; BTW, the Holland Tunnel is in fact operated by the PANYNJ. Epicgenius (talk) 12:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Move of this article to "St. John's Rotary"

An editor recast this article and moved it to "St. John's Rotary" without discussion. I have reverted that move, as I think it was unwarranted and ill-advised. I would first like to see references to the existence of "St. John's Rotary" as a name -- I find no Google hits for it at all. Second, the bulk of the article is about the history of the square (that would be a move I could support, to "St. John's Square"), and not about the "rotary", which is non-notable in and of itself. Third, the roadway is not actually a rotary, it's a series of exits laid out in a disconnected circle -- at the final exit you have to leave, you cannot continue around as you would in an actual rotary. BMK (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I have also reverted the editor's refocusing the article without first getting a consensus to do so. Per WP:BRD the article stays in the status quo ante while the discussion goes on. I have asked the editor not to revert again until he has a consensus to do so from this discussion. BMK (talk) 22:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I have posted a neutral pointer to this discussion on the talk page of Wikiproject NYC. BMK (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

St. John's Rotary is the name of the place in the article. Djflem (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Show me a reliable source that says that. BMK (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The references are in the page you reverted. Go to history, do the homework, and get back to me.Djflem (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

No, you have made an assertion about the name of the structure, so please give me a reference that calls it "St. John's Rotary". BMK (talk) 22:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Evidence for "St. John's Park" as proper article name

• No Google hits for "St. John's Rotary" relevant to this structure BMK (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• In the NY Times archive, I find two hits for "St. John's Rotary", both stories about the Mark Di Suervo sculpture, and one hit for "Holland Tunnel Rotary" (from 1958). On the other hand, there are 437 hits for "St. John's Park" and another 36 hits for "St. John's Square". Clearly, neither "St. John's Rotary" nor "Holland Tunnel Rotary" are the common names here, at least according to New York's newspaper of record. BMK (talk) 23:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• Just to confuse matters a little, the Encyclopedia of New York City's entry for "Hudson Square" is not about the neighborhood of that name (a fairly recent usage), but about St. John's Park: "One of the oldest squares in New York City..." etc. It appears that "Hudson Square" was the original name, and was surplanted by "St. John's Park" by 1827. (See page 627). There is, of course, no entry for "St. John's Rotary" or "Holland Tunnel Rotary", and the article on the Holland Tunnel does not mention the structure at all. BMK (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• In a "necrology" entry in the fifth edition of The AIA Guide to New York City (page 65): "The circular wasteland within the Holland Tunnel Exit Rotary" is still called 'St. John's Park' but bears no resemblance to the original genteel square that bore that name." BMK (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• The roads around the park/square may well be known as St. John's Rotary (e.g. Public Art Fund) but the area within is St. John's Park. The "rotary" name seems to be uncommon, while the name of the park appears in many historical documents as well as on Google Maps (Bing and MapQuest don't name it). I think that the article should retain its current name as the most common name for this feature, but inclusion of the rotary name is fine. I also think that the overhead photo that Djflem added is superior to the street-level photo which is currently included. Pburka (talk) 23:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree, so I've replaced the ground-level image with the aerial shot. BMK (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • BTW, I think it's a category error to make assumptions about extrinsic things on the basis of what an artist calls his work. Who knows how he arrived at that name? Did he start with "St. John's Park Holland Tunnel Rotary Arch", but think it was too long? He could have called it "The Lost Square Arch", would we then have concluded that the tract of land was known as "The Lost Square"?

    I think the only conclusion you can reasonably draw from the title of Di Suervo's Serra's sculpture is that "St. John's Rotary Arch" is the name of the sculpture. BMK (talk) 23:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

No evidence so-called St John's Park is park

Google hits for St John's Park in New York will take to to Brooklyn.

Can you please provide 20th or 21st century references that call the 2015 incarnation of this piece of land that was once a city square and then later a train depot a park? There a plenty about a park doesn't exist anymore…… Why? It is not a park. It is not a square; it is a tunnel/highway exit with greenery. To say so otherwise is original research.

Below are some for the page you deleted, apparently, without reading, or as indicated above, choosing not to.Djflem (talk) 01:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• The NYC Parks Dept does not consider its a "park" or "square". "Park of the Past". New York Parks Department. October 8, 2005. Retrieved 2014-12-23.

• PANYNJ, the owners of the property refer to it as a rotary, which is the primary function of the block:
• "REHABILITATION OF HOLLAND TUNNEL NEW YORK EXIT PLAZA TO BEGIN THIS MONTH". PANYNJ. March 20, 2003. Retrieved 2014-12-29.
• "PORT AUTHORITY COMPLETES HOLLAND TUNNEL ROTARY IMPROVEMENTS". PANYNJ. December 29, 2004. Retrieved 2014-12-29.
• "HT-412 Rehabilitation of the NY Exit Plaza and Holland Tunnel Rotary". Amercom. Retrieved 2015-01-03.
• "Holland Tunnel Rotary". Studio 5 Partnership. Retrieved 2015-01-03.
• "Holland Tunnel Rotary" (PDF). Ives Architecture Studio. Retrieved 2015-01-03.White, Norval (2010). AIA Guide to New York City. Oxford University Press. p. 65. ISBN 978-0-19-538386-7. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Other have referred to it as the St. John's Rotary

• Gillespie, Angus K (2011), Crossing Under the Hudson: The Story of the Holland and Lincoln Tunnels, Rutgers University Press
• Jackson, Robert Wendell (2011), Highway Under the Hudson: A History of the Holland Tunnel, NYU Press, ISBN 9780814745038</ref>
• Penn, Emily (October 19, 2011). "RICHARD SERRA – ST JOHN'S ROTARY ARK, 1980, NEW YORK". Penn Research. Retrieved 2015-01-03.
• Serra, Richard (1994), Writings/Interviews, University of Chicago Press, 15 aug. 1994
• Sauro, William (January 30, 1987). "Outdoor Exhibition Closes". The New York Times. Retrieved 2015-01-03.</ref>

• The NYC Dept or Parks doesn't list it as a park or square because it doesn't belong to the city, it belongs to the Port Authority. BMK (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• "REHABILITATION OF..." only refers to it as an "exit rotary". No caps, not a proper noun.
• "PORT AUTHORITY COMPLETES..." uses "rotary" (no caps) throughout, no proper noun. The caps in the title is the result of all words in the title being capitalized.
• "HT412 Rehabilitation..." refers to it only as "NY exit plaza and rotary at the NY entrance to the Holland Tunnel." The caps in the title is again because all words in the title are capped, not because it is being called the "Holland Tunnel Rotary" as a proper noun.
• "Studio 5 Partnership..." does indeed refer to it as the "Holland Tunnel Rotary", but this is a firm of architects, and does not represent an official usage.
• Same with the Ives Partnership, no official status.
• "Crossing Under..." refers to it as "St. John's Rotary", "Holland Tunnel Rotary" and "exit rotary". This is the only reliable source so far that you've presented that refers to "St. John's Rotary:.
• "Highway Under..." I see no hits at all for the word "rotary" You searched on "Holland tunnel exit 1927"
• I think we've established that the name of the sculpture (by Richard Serra, not Mark di Suervo, my error) is "St. John's Rotary Ark", but that really has no bearing on anything, since he could have called it anything he liked.
• You really haven't presented any significant evidence that "St. John's Rotary" is the name of the rotary, nor that the article should be about this non-notable cluster of exits, and not about the plot of land orignally called "Hudson Square" and then "St. John's Park" which has an extensive history. BMK (talk) 01:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oh, Google, try searching under "St. John's Park Manhattan" instead of "New York", plenty of hits. BMK (talk) 01:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

General discussion

• You have not presented any evidence that Saint John's Park in 2015 as park, please do.Djflem (talk) 02:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • It's clearly not a park, in the sense you're looking for, but it is nonetheless called "St. John's Park". Towns can be called "city" without having any of the normal attributes of a city, streets can be called "Maple Street" without having any maples on them, apartments can be called "River View Gardens" without having a view of the river or any gardens, delis can be called "Gramercy Deli" despite being nowhere near Gramercy, etc. etc. etc. In general, there's no accounting for names, and there's no requirement that a tract of land which was once a square or park can't continue to carry its previous name even when it no longer functions as a public square or a park - and that's what's happened here. The land in question is still called "St. John's Park", just as the Meatpacking District will continue to be called that well after the last meat packer in the area has closed down. It's a name'. BMK (talk) 02:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• It doesn't matter that it's not a park today. It was a park in the past, and that name still appears to be used for the (now inaccessible) plot of land. I propose that if the plot had never been a park and public square it would not warrant an article. Were it only a series of roads leading to and from the Holland Tunnel we might include a mention of it in that article, but it's unlikely it would have its own page. The reason the plot is notable is because it was once a park (and notability is not temporary). Pburka (talk) 03:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes it does matter that it's not a park today. It is a rotary at the end of a tunnel and interstate highway that has history of having been a bowery/farmland, a city square, and rail freight terminal. That fact seems to have been ignored. Editors do not get to pick and choose which aspect of a piece of history they wish to write about and then name an article by that choice or notion or their perceived notability. That's original research, which this article is as titled and written. They need to provide references to support your claims with verifiable references. You have been asked to do so, and haven't, so the claims made above are only that until proven.Djflem (talk) 09:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Most of the article, as it stands, talks about the historical use, which is a park. We could move it to "St. John's Rotary" if we have more details in the article about the rotary than about the site's historical use, and if the rotary, not the park, was the main use for the land. However, the plot has been used as a rotary only recently, and the rotary itself is not very notable, as any other entrance/exit plaza for a bridge or tunnel would be. By contrast, the land's use as a park is notable, which is why the article was created at that title in the first place. Epicgenius (talk) 13:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

While we await Wikipedia:Verifiability from the other editors (or if you can provide some yourself) about claims the claims being made I suggest you review the timeline below with regard to your statement about length. You're aware, of course, notability is subjective and a matter of opinion. Djflem (talk) 22:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Hudson Square/St Johns Pak 1803-1867
• St John Terminal 1867-1927
• Holland Tunnel Rotary 1927-2015

I don't know why you link to WP:V, which really has nothing to do with this issue. The issue is totally about notability, which is only subjective in a minor way, since we have objective notability standards which have to be met. Given that, if that tract of land didn't have prior history as a square, real estate development, park etc, and was simply a circular cluster of highway exits, there would be no article about it, just as there is no article about the Lincoln Tunnel Helix. Its notability is entirely about its history, not about its current function, regardless of how long that function continues. BMK (talk) 23:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia requires verifiable sources for claims made. You are making a claim and have been asked to back it up by references. (just as you asked for references). Your cherry picking of which part of the history of the rotary is notable is subjective. You are welcome to your above bolded opinion but conjecture based on a point of view is of no import here. The entire history of the land on which the rotary is cited is part of what makes it interesting: that's why I cleaned it up, expanded on it, provided additional references and context to the article. Djflem (talk) 00:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

There's no question about verifiability here. The article is well referenced, and will be better referenced if you'd stop screwing around -- by forking this article by moving a copy of your version to Holland Tunnel Rotary-- and let me work on it. Please stop trying to WP:OWN this subject matter, it can't be done. Just follow WP:CONSENSUS, please, which is that this article (this one one and only article) should focus on the history of the land, and not on the "rotary", and that it should live at this address. BMK (talk) 02:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Since when do you decide Wikipedia:Verifiability matters or not? You have been asked to. The above sounds like WP:OWN to meDjflem (talk) 03:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

No consensus reached that the focus of this article is the park and if it is should be historical article only about the park (1803-1867)

Despite BMK having been asked, and been unable to provide references and unable to substantiate any claims about notability, he proceeds to suggest that that some sort of consensus has been reached.

If the name of the articles is to be St John's Park then, it should be about Hudson Square/St Johns Park 1803-1867 with a brief mention what proceeded and what followed. Any article which substantially discusses those issues should not bear the name of place that hasn't existed for more than 150 years.

Holland Tunnel Rotary is appropriate name for an article that discusses the history of the piece land on which it sits covering the development from the colonial era to the present day. Not the period of it's incarnation (63 years) as a park, not it's 50 years a rail station, but the current use (88 years)Djflem (talk) 03:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC) Djflem (talk) 03:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Despite there being no consensus, an editor is attempting to suppress facts to order to promote their POV and have it both ways. S/he would like to claim that St John's Park is a tract of land at the same time is attempting thorough use of imagery and headers to give the impression that the original St Jame's Park is the most important aspect of this article. It hasn't since existed 1867 and has actually been the exit plaza for the Holland Tunnel since 1927 and for 50 years before that, a train depot. S/he has been hard pressed to provide more than one reference that alludes to St John's Park name in 21st century usage, and even that is in a historical context. Clearly the editor is unfamiliar general essay structure and how Wikipedia:MOS, Wikipedia:Naming, and Wikipedia:UNDUE works. Cherry-picking based on subjective personal perceptions is not encyclopaedic and not permitted. The editor has not given any reason other than opinion above (let's hope they don't repeat here!) as to why the article should be an exception to standard Wikipedia practice of presenting material in a an orderly chronologic fashion.

The facts:

• Hudson Square/St Johns Pak 1803-1867
• St John Terminal
• Holland Tunnel Rotary 1927-2015

St John's Park was the colloquial name of Hudson Square, a park that existed from 1803-1867. It later become the site of St. John's Park Terminal from 1867-1927 which since 1927 has been the circular exit roadway for the Holland Tunnel.Djflem (talk) 11:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Your bolded comment is correct, except for the erroneous use of "St. James" where you meant "St. John's" and the use of "colloquial" -- none of the sources cited support that contention. In essence, though, you are correct, it was a square with townhouses and a park, then it was a rail terminal, now it's a bunch of highway exits. Problem is, the square/park is historically notable, as is the rail depot, but the exits are... just a bunch of exits, and are non-notable. That's why the other commenters above agree that focus of the article should be on the history of the place, and the name should be "St. John's Park". You seem to want to wave away that clear and obvious consensus (Epicgenius and Pburka agree with me, you are the only one who doesn't) -- and its logic -- because the edit roadway, for some reason -- appears to be important to you. I, on the other hand, think it received just about the right amount of coverage in the article as it is now, with the right balance in importance, which is not very. BMK (talk) 22:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Your repeated claims about notability do not dismiss the fact that the article as so structured does not conform to Wikipedia:MOS, Wikipedia:Naming, and Wikipedia:UNDUE. If you wish to write an article about a historical park then do so, but do so. If you wish to write about a plot of land, as the opening sentence of the states then it should be structured in such way that that history is presented neutrally without an emphasis on one aspect. of that land. The article as you have presented is POV and poor encyclopaedic work. Djflem (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I entirely disagree, but I'm sure you'd expect that. BMK (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic.Djflem (talk) 01:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Any notable aspect, which brings us back full circle. Your WP:V and WP:WEIGHT arguments have no validity, and your WP:N argument is based entirely on your notion, unshared by anyone else here, that the most notable aspect of this subject are a handful of highway exits. You throw WP:NPOV at me, but, in fac, you are operating entirely on the invalid assumption that the exits are notable and interesting. They're not.

Please stop your campaign. The consensus here is clear, if you keep editing against the clear consensus, you are likely to be sanctioned. You seem to do good work elsewhere, so that would be a shame. BMK (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

This is ludicrous. There is only one thing notable about the highway exit: its history as a park and a railway depot. Contemporary sources and maps continue to call the space St. John's Park, and the rotary isn't notable. That the park is no longer much of a park is irrelevant, as notability is not temporary. Pburka (talk) 03:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Read and move on, BMK. and stop rep[eating yourself. Your arrogant assumption that you know what my assumptions are of io nterest here, I do agree with Pburka that the history of the park and railway depot should be given equal weight in the article, which is not happening here.Djflem (talk) 09:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Your ability to (willfully?) misconstrue Pburka's remark is really quite amazing. BMK (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Poorly structured article

Article should following standard practice with foots in appropriate sections

• Introduction
• colonial era
• Trintiy Church
• St. John's Park Terminal
• Holland Tunnel Rotary

This current mishmash of headers and pictures is sloppy work.Djflem (talk) 09:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The above is the structure of the article, only the headers differ. The current headers are appropriate, and the layout is visually balanced. BMK (talk) 10:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Poor punctuation

Rotary is a standard English word. It's definition in this context is explained once. Quotations all over the sloppy writing and editoritializing.Djflem (talk)

"Rotary" is indeed a standard word, however, the cluster of exits from the Holland Tunnel, although referred to as a "rotary" because it is roughly circular, is not an actual rotary, because it does not loop back on itself. At exit 5, one has to leavve the roadway, one cannot continue and try again for exits 1-4. For this reason it is not a an actual rotary, and the quotation marks are appropriate. BMK (talk) 10:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Not one source,not the NY Times, not the PANYNJ "it's owners" use quotations, which are not needed. Only BMK in what appears to insert his opinion in a non-neutral way. See [[Wikipedia :MOS}}Djflem (talk) 16:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Djflem on this specific point. If the sources call it a rotary (without quotes) we should do the same. Pburka (talk) 16:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Then I go along with the consensus. BMK (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, other sources call it the "Holland Tunnel Exit Plaza". BMK (talk) 03:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Cherrypicking from unreliable references

Two weak USERGENERATED unreliable references present contradictory information. One is a Wikipeidia Commons photo a a sign on fence used to support the claim "is not legally accessible to pedestrians" (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:St._John%27s_Park_no_trespassing_sign.jpg) the other shows the park labelled to a recreation area. (http://www.google.com/maps/place/Saint+John%27s+Park/@40.7214751,-74.0076523,18z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x89c259f526786baf:0xf3925f45c2979270) The editor who continues to insert this information is clearly cherry picking support a non neutral point of view.Djflem (talk) 22:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• The Google Maps note is clearly an error. Google's algorithms may have confused this St. John's Park with another park of the same name in Brooklyn. It should be noted that Google Maps notes are user generated content, but the place names are not, and Google should be considered a reliable source for such. I'm not entirely comfortable with a photo being used as a reference, but this photo is of a sign, so little interpretation is necessary (although one must trust the photographer that the sign is located where claimed). Assuming the sign is the actual cited source, this is a primary source, but not user generated. Pburka (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

If so, then the Google reference is unreliable and does not provide verifiable info. A picture of PANYNJ sign is clearly user generated. Since they are poor quality references that contradict each other, they are better left out.Djflem (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The description is in error, not the name. BMK (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• The sign is not user generated content. It's a published (i.e. publicly displayed) written work. Think of the sign as a rare book which is only available at a single library. BMK has helped us by scanning (photographing) the book (sign) and placing a copy on-line. It's self-published (by the PANYNJ) but it's not user generated. Pburka (talk) 00:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

It is published on Wikimedia Commons which is a user generated site, similar to Wikipedia, which we all well know cannot not be used as a reference. As far as Google is concerned, the use of one part of a reference and not another is cherry picking. Can't have it both ways, sorry.Djflem (talk) 11:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Wikimedia Commons

A further discussion of the reliability and use of Wikipedia Commons reference is taking place at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Wikimedia Commons.Djflem (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Editor determined to skew the article toward his personal POV

Editor Djflem has been consistently editing this article against the consensus of the commenters here, making as many small changes as possible to skew the article to focus on five non-notable Holland Tunnel exits rather than the notable history of the land, the historical park and square, and the railroad depot that replaced it. Practically every edit he's made has been to this end. He has broken WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NPOV, WP:OWN, WP:Disruption and WP:TE, at the very least. In addition, his writing is unacceptable in quality, his sense of how to structure and layout an article is poor, and he has a predilection for personal attacks against anyone who disagrees with him.

Because of this, and most importantly because of his apparent inability to follow the clear consensus on this talk [page, I ask the other editors here to enforce a requirement that Djflem post any changes he plans to make to the article here first, so that they can be evaluated and approved by a consensus before being added to the article. BMK (talk) 00:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, there is one editor (BMK) who is determined to skew the article toward his personal POV and can be seen in the lead and it's poor quality that doesn't conform to any editorial or wikipedia standards, and has resorted to make accusation about other editors (while certainly be guilty of any of the same breaches that he likes to throw around) to conceal that. .Djflem (talk) 01:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

My, my, aren;t you clever? Except that there's no mirror image here, since you are the only editor who continually makes changes against consensus, and, in fact, denies that there is a consensus. My edits aren't POV, therefore, because they are in line with talk page consensus, while yours are not, they reflect your personal preference that the article be about five highway exits. That ain't gonna happen, so this is all wasted effort on your part. BMK (talk) 01:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Really rich. Like the chutzpah. Sorry, but becomes comical from one who says "Verifiabilty doesn't matter here" and then spews and cites Wikipedia policy, and certainly appears and seems to edit as if those policies for other people, but not him/herself and make what clearly seem like attempts and appeals to suppress other users contributions such as the above and placing banners hiding their contributions.

By the way, you do not have my permission to edit my comments on this talk page. Nor are you permitted to remove this public domain information published on January 6 Djflem (talk) 13:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Editor apparently thinks he can declare what consensus is without reference to the actual opinions expressed in the consensus discussion

No consensus reached that the focus of this article is the park and if it is should be historical article only about the park (1803-1867) Depsite BMK having been asked, and been unable to provide references and unable to substantiate any claims about notability, he proceeds to suggest that that some sort of consensus has been reached. If the name of the articles is to be St John's Park then, it should be about Hudson Square/St Johns Park 1803-1867 with a brief mention what proceeded and what followed. Any article which substantially discusses those issues should not bear the name of place that hasn't existed for more than 150 years. Holland Tunnel Rotary is appropriate name for an article that discusses the history of the piece land on which it sits covering the development from the colonial era to the present day. Not the period of it's incarnation (63 years) as a park, not it's 50 years a rail station, but the current use (88 years)Djflem (talk) 03:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC) Djflem (talk) 03:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Bad Lead

The first sentence of this article is St. John's Park is the name for a tract of land, which is already very poor. (how many other article start with is the name of?: Baraka Obama is the name of the president of the USA; the Elizabethtown Tract is the name of the tract? So the article is about the name? Nonetheless, given that poor start, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section requires that the the introduction be succinct and cover the basics in as they will be discussed in the article. The person (BMK) who wrote this conveniently avoids mentioning the colonial era, despite there being a sub-section in the body.. Proceeds to use the word originally, despite the fact the name of the tract of land was the Dominee's Bouwery. Deletes links to very appropriate links and the present day usage of the tract. And then determines, to include and highlight one critique, not a fact, mind you, but a critique, and milk it in the lead. Djflem (talk) 01:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The lede section is not a summary of "everything" in the article, it's a summary of the important stuff in the article. The current lede covers the important stuff just fine. If you'd like "name of" and "originally" to come out, that's OK with me. (Incidentally, you're wrong about "Dominee's Bouwery" -- before it was a farmstead it was part of Lispenard Meadows -- that is to say, basically wetland.)

The "critique" is extremely authoritative, you just don't like it because it knocks your precious the rotary - just what is your hang up about that, anyway?

I'll go make the other changes you request, as they seem reasonable to me. If anyone objects, just say so here. BMK (talk) 01:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I reverted your latest attmept to skew the article to be about the rotary, and to add unimportant stuff to the lede, and then took out "name of" and "originally" - but also added "farmland" as a description of the land immediately before Trinity Church developed it.

Is there anything else specific that's sticking in your craw? BMK (talk) 01:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Lead should be a neutral synopsis of of article based in fact and should be able stand alone as a concise overview

A lead to an article about a plot of land should cover size, ownership, and use such as:

St. John's Park is a plot of land owned by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in the TriBeCa neighborhood of Lower Manhattan, New York City. It is bounded by Varick Street, Laight Street, Hudson Street and Beach Street, also known for that block as Ericsson Place. The plot once on part of a plantation owned by an early settler to New Netherland. It was later owned by the English crown, which deeded it to Trinity Church. The church built St. John's Chapel and laid out Hudson Square and created New York City's first development of townhouses around a private park. By 1827 the neighborhood had become known as "St. John's Park" and remained fashionable until about 1850. In 1866 it was sold to the Hudson River Railway Company, and became the location of "St. John's Park Freight Depot", the railroad's southern terminus. The terminal was demolished in 1927 to allow construction of the Holland Tunnel Rotary, a roadway with exits for traffic leaving the Holland Tunnel.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Djflem (talk • contribs) 06:16, 11 January 2015‎ (UTC)

Once again, let's be entirely clear: you will not be allowed to rewrite the article to be about the current status of the land as the location of non-notable highway exits, because the clear consensus here is that it should be focused on the history of the property. In addition, the lede is, as mentioned above, a summary of the important salient facts, not a potpourri of unimportant trivia. Your edits have been reverted, and will continue to be reverted unless they adhere to the consensus view. BMK (talk) 18:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Just to let the other editors here know, I'm pretty much done with responding to Djflem's comments here. The requirement to discuss with other editors doesn't extend to continuing in the face of such dogged intransigence and unwillingness to concede to consensus. I will continue to revert Djflem's non-consensus edits, but I don't plan to reply to any of his comments. I'll continue to monitor the page in case other editors have things to say. BMK (talk) 18:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with BMK that the lead should be a a summary of the important stuff in the article.. And since s/he has chosen to create subsections to organise the "important stuff" as seen in the table of contents

• 1 Early history
• 2 Development by Trinity Church
• 3 Decline of the neighborhood
• 4 Freight terminal
• 5 Holland Tunnel exits

and since everyone who knows how to write knows that Wikipedia:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, I've updated it.Djflem (talk) 08:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The editor appears to believe that writing a lede is a mechanical process, but it is not, it requires editorial judgement as to what in the article is significant, and what is not. Being farmland in colonial New Amsterdam/New York wasn't significant: cleared land was either town or it was farmland. As such, it is not sufficiently significant (or interesting) to be included in the lede. The first significant thing to happen to the land was its development by Trinity.

Nor, for that matter, does the current ownership of the property by the Port Authority warrant inclusion in the lede section. The editor's inclusion of this fact is simply another example of nis attempt, in both big and little ways, to skew the article's focus to the land's current status as the host of non-notable highway exits. This is his preference, his firmly-held POV, as shown by his re-write of the article to be about "St. John's Rotary" -- a non-existent name -- and his attempt to move it without discussion to that title. This goes against the clear consensus established on this page that the focus of the article should be on the history of the land, and not on the exit plaza.

For these reasons I have reverted the edit. BMK (talk) 11:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Response to non-responsive answer to issue being addressed

• 1. As is clearly demonstrated above BMK is not in good faith to responding to concerns being discussed in this thread, Wikipedia:LEADFOLLOWSBODY.
• 2. His/her editing is clearly disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate the point that he does have to follow Wikipedia policy.
• 3. It shows a refusal to Wikipedia:LISTEN. The clear consensus is that it the "article name should St John's Park. and should that it should be focused on the history of the property. Those issues have been decided and has is seen in the table of contents and body of the article have been met. Claims about consensus are bogus and boring.
• 4..Editorial judgement implies operating from a place of personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions. So it good to see that BMK concede that he is using his personal experience, interpretations, and opinions in his his approach to writing. Problem is BMK's editorial judgement is rife with personal prejudice and skews the lead away from a neutral presentation of facts and includes unessential trivia and glaring omissions to promote his non neutral point of view. His significant is totally subjective. As clearly stated in Wikipedia:Five pillars" Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong, a condition which is not being met in BMK editing.
• 5. BMK's obsession with interpreting my intentions is starting to seem pathological though it's nothing more than a overt obvious red herring tactic to steer the discussion away from the issues at hand and cloud them with nonsense. It is an attempt to campaign to drive away other editors. It has no place on this page and should desist immediately.

Which is the better lead for a Wikipedia article? One that follows Wikipedia:Writing better articles or one rife with "editorial judgement"?

Based on table of contents

St. John's Park is a plot of land in the TriBeCa neighborhood of Lower Manhattan, New York City bounded by Varick Street, Laight Street, Hudson Street and Beach Street, also known for that block as Ericsson Place. It is no longer a park. The plot once on part of a plantation owned by an early settler to New Netherland. It was later owned by the English crown, which deeded it to Trinity Church. The church built St. John's Chapel and laid out Hudson Square and created New York City's first development of townhouses around a private park. By 1827 the neighborhood had become known as "St. John's Park" and remained fashionable until about 1850. In 1866 it was sold to the Hudson River Railway Company and became the location of "St. John's Park Freight Depot", the railroad's southern terminus. The terminal was demolished in 1927 to allow construction of the Holland Tunnel Rotary, a roadway with exits for traffic leaving the Holland Tunnel. It is owned by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

Above Simply and concisely follows the table of contents that follows the guidelines of Wikipedia:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, which would be highly recommended in a situation where someone is making the contentious claim that their editorial judgement is better than Wikipedia:Writing better articles which of course leads to lead to a lead that is poorly structured, includes disparate and irrelevant details, overweight one or more viewpoints, and degrade the overall quality of the article.

Editorial judgment

St. John's Park' is a plot of land in the TriBeCa neighborhood of Lower Manhattan, New York City bounded by Varick Street, Laight Street, Hudson Street and Beach Street, also known for that block as Ericsson Place.

Called "Hudson Square" by Trinity Church when the farmland was laid out as New York City's first development of townhouses around a private park, by 1827 it had become known as "St. John's Park" and was a fashionable neighborhood until around 1850. In 1866 it was sold to Cornelius Vanderbilt's Hudson River Railway Company, and became the location of "St. John's Park Freight Depot", the railroad's southern terminus.

Since 1927 the land accommodates a cluster of exits which sort traffic coming from the Holland Tunnel. The interior of the rotary, not legally accessible to pedestrians, is still referred to as "St. John's Park", although it is no longer a park, but instead what the AIA Guide to New York City calls a "circular wasteland".

• 1. Omission: first subsection of article not mentioned even though pre-Hudson Square era extensively covered
• 2. Omission of where the name came from (the church) in the first place
• 3. No context: the farmland :what farmland? no context established
• 4. Trivai: Cornelius Vanderbilt? get a linked mention in lead while subject not actually relevant to or expounded upon in article
• 5. Poor punctuation: no sentence break between park and freight terminal but paragraph break after that?
• 6. Vacant language: a cluster of exits which sort traffic unnecessarily convoluted vacant; creates confusion not clarity
• 7. Omission: appropriate, relevant link to current use omiited
• 7. Omission: essential information about current ownership omitted despite ownership being mentioned in other sections
• 8. Trivia: trival cherry-picked critique completely non essential to then understanding of history of the plot of land

References

Claim of ownership and threats

As seen above, unable to address the article and assess it based on the merits of the work BMK has now taken to claiming ownership of it and making threats to disrupt as well as vandalizing other people's comments on this talk page Djflem (talk) 07:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

@Djflem: Okay, time out. This is not called for: Depsite [sic] BMK having been asked, and been unable to provide references and unable to substantiate any claims about notability, he proceeds to suggest that that some sort of consensus has been reached. In the above section, there is a 3 to 1 consensus right now on keeping the article at this title. If you feel otherwise, open a WP:RFC about the page title. Epicgenius (talk) 03:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

You probably want to open a new section, use this code: {{rfc|style}}, and then explain your concern about why it should be named "St. John's Rotary". Epicgenius (talk) 03:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

That was a message on BMK's talk to page to point out that it is vandalizism to edit, or move, other people's comments on this talk page and that his attempts to censor are abusive.

While BMK has shown some ability to write, his ability to read and comprehend strike me a dubious. His belief that he has the ability to read minds over the internet very cute, too. HIs (or anyone else's arrogant assumptions) about knowing what my intentions are tedious and time-wasting and have lead to some asinine accusations. There was a discussion to about keeping the name of the article St. John's Park, which I accept. As he wrote above the clear consensus here is that it should be focused on the history of the property. and I agree. So what are his rantings and unfounded claims about? They are bogus and poor attempts to try to control the content of and presentation of material on the page and promote himself to the heroic protector of the page? And you've fallen for that? And accept the non neutral POV, and the cheap edit summaries by BMK which state "against consensus" that void of any value and are simply knee-jerk reactions supported by that delusion? The structure of the article is fine and achieves the goals about being about the history of the property. I will commend BMK for mining the references I provided with this version of the article. But there are still problems with standards with regard to Wikipedia:MOS, Wikipedia:Verification, Wikipedia:Balance, Wikipedia:Cherry-picking, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I would hope that you would be equally concerned with those points and not be drawn into BMK's obsession with the non-issue which he uses a his catch-all for trying to Wikipedia:OWN the page. Djflem (talk) 09:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, BMK has instructed you to propose changes here. I am not either agreeing or disagreeing, but I strongly suggest that if you feel this way, feel free to open an RfC to get uninvolved others' opinions. Epicgenius (talk) 13:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Can I suggest having a look a Wikipedia:Five pillars? BMK instructed me? What? BMK attempted to enlist other editors to suppress my contributions to this article. It's saddening to see such a laizez-faire attitude at attempts at censorship and trying to exert control over a page. Pretty shocking, actually. Please feel free to follow BMK's instructions as much as you wish, but hope you'll be wary from whence they are coming: Someone IMO with a serious ownership issues and a total disregard for NPOV who has an outspoken attitude and agenda about the way of working and personal negative interpretations about parts of the subject matter. Despite the article naming and history of the plot of land issues having been resolved, a MO still informed by in this mantra from the Holland Tunnel Rotary talk page: Since you display a lack of understanding, let me repeat that your article Holland Tunnel Rotary isn't going to see the light of day, since it's simply St. John's Park rejiggered to focus on a non-notable subject. BMK (talk) 07:32, 6 January 2015 is very much at work and evidenced thourghout the article and it history. I'm sorry you choose not to see it.Djflem (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Please don't insinuate that. That's not what I'm saying. I am saying that since others disagree with your edits here, you should propose them here. Epicgenius (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Have posted the two proposed leads for this the article on this page above. Please feel free to comment as to which is appropriate.Thanks. Djflem (talk) 15:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Consensus

Just to reiterate, there is a clear consensus on this talk page that this article should be focused on the history of the land, and not on the non-notable highway exits. Any edits which do not follow this consensus are disruptive and should be immediately removed. Since the number of discussants hasn't changed, further discussion -- including wall-of-text comments, editorializing sub-headings, moving around comments to support a POV, near personal attacks, etc. -- does not seem profitable. The requirement to discuss does not extend to editors whose WP:IDHT behavior attempts to hold the article to ransom. Removing disruptive non-consensus edits is not a bad thing, it's required to keep the project one that floats on consensus, and does not give in to one editor attempting to dominate others by ignoring the consensus and bludgeoning other editors with constant edits.

In short please edit according to the consensus on this talk page, as is required by WP:CONSENSUS. BMK (talk) 22:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Consensus through discussion

There is discussion on this page above about the shoddy inconsistent work in the lead. If you do not wish to address the issues raised then do not edit this page Djflem (talk) 23:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The problems with the lead are:

• 1. Omission: first subsection not mentioned even though pre-Hudson Square era extensively covered
• 2. Omission of where the name came from (the church) in the first place
• 3. No context: the farmland :what farmland? no context established
• 4. Trivai: Cornelius Vanderbilt? linked mention in lead subject not actually relevant to/expounded upon
• 5. Poor punctuation: no sentence break between park and freight terminal but paragraph break after that?
• 6. Vacant language: a cluster of exits which sort traffic unnecessarily convoluted vacant; creates confusion not clarity
• 7. Omission: appropriate, relevant link to current use omiited
• 7. Omission: essential information about current ownership omitted despite ownership being mentioned in other sections
• 8. Trivia: trival cherry-picked critique completely non essential to then understanding of history of the plot of land

Djflem (talk) 09:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Consensus through editing

On January 10th, consensus was achieved through consensus through editing for the text within the last subsection of the article seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=St._John%27s_Park&action=edit&oldid=641937483 achieved through consensus through editing when two editors contributed to that section. There have no others edits, no discussion and no consensus to change the section as has been done one editor, BMK. So much for BMK's respect for consensus. Djflem (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Blatant abuse and disregard for Wikipedia by BMK

The above verbose vacant diatribe is just much more of BMK's blah, blah blah to deflect from the shoddy work he is trying pass off as encyclopedia. Unable to respond to the very legitimate concerns with regard to the lead for this article, he retreats to recycling his bogus claims, attacking other editors, and declaring himself above discussion. It is a blatant abuse of the the process and total disregard for Wikipedia. BMK has been made aware problems with the lead for this article, both on their talk page, this page, and through edit summaries but still is trying to market his delusion that there has been consensus achieved as to how the material in it should be written. There is no consensus to keep the crap in this or any other article. If s/he does not wish to participate in a discussion as to how to improve this article then s/he should choose to recuse. Djflem (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Starting Over?

@Djflem: The article has been locked for a number of days now, and I'm wondering if it's perhaps been enough time for both of us to have calmed down a bit. I think it would be a good idea if you and I could try to start over again and find a way to work together collaboratively on the article.

As a first step, I think it would be good to archive everything on this talk page before this comment, so we won't (literally!) have our past words hanging over us, making it easier to begin again from square one, I hope without any rancor carried over from before. If you agree with me on that, then whichever of us has the first opportunity to do so should do the archiving (unless anyone else objects, of course).

It occurs to me that one way we might take a baby step towards working collaboratively is if you could post in reply a change you think would improve the article which is the least controversial. That way we can discuss that change, and then work our way on up.

I really hope that you're willing to let bygones be bygones and give this a go. To that end, please feel free to post on my user talk page again. Best, BMK (talk) 04:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@Djflem: I see that you have done some editing since I posted the comment above, so I hope you've had the chance to read it and think about what I suggested. I'd love to get your response - should we give it a try? Best, BMK (talk) 04:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think it's a good idea to archive the talk page; it gives potential editors an idea of the history of the development of the article. I prefer to let my word and my work stand and be scrutinized as it is.

Additionally, there are open issues in discussions on this page that have yet to be resolved. I've already done the work to present them (and others, btw, that will need to be looked at.) I would suggest that you simply address them as a normal part of process of writing an article. The only agreement that needs to be reiterated is that editors stick to the core content policies of English Wikipedia which are neutral point of view (NPOV), verifiability and no original research.

You're declaration on this page that "Verifiability doesn't matter", your attempts to conceal my contributions to this talk page, your vindictive scrubbing of the article of the word "rotary" when decided your editorializing quotations marks weren't acceptable, your unilateral changing of consensus reached through editing, and your blind reverts (4x) and refusal to address legitimate concerns about the lead (etc, etc) are not IMO minor infractions. For whatever reasons, (and I don't care what they are) it seems you are operating under the misconception that since a consensus was reached that the article be named "St. John's Park" and it be focused on the history of the plot of land (your words, repeated numerous times and the opening sentence of the article, which you wrote) somehow gives you control of the page. That, as you know, is not true. No one needs to ask your permission to edit the page or take baby steps so as not make edits you consider controversial.

Since I'm here to write articles and can't be bothered with the politics and power games that some people like to play. I will proceed with assumption of good faith that your reflections will inform how you proceed and that any interactions we may have will be civil and that no personal attacks will be made.. As long as discussions about the article are based on CONTENT based on FACTS with references and are are devoid of an agenda, POV, selective omission, promotion or denigration of any aspect of the material, and mind-reading it should be fine. Djflem (talk) 00:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

If there is a dispute between two editors in good standing about an edit, it seems well worthwhile to go slow and take "baby steps" to facilitate the collaborative process -- but let's see how things progress. Part of the process is that all editors should respect a consensus which has been established on the talk page by the editors who have commented there, so I hope that, together, we can manage to uphold that consensus as we work. In this caae, there were two points upon which the editors agreed: (1) The focus of the article should be on the history, and not on the Holland Tunnel exits, and (2) that the article should be called "St. John's Park". I'll be glad to give you the diffs in which the other two editors involved agreed with this -- or Epicgenius and Pburka, if they're watching, can comment here. BMK (talk) 01:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC) BMK (talk) 01:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• Here is the edit in which Pburka agrees that the article should be called "St. John's Park". His edit summary, in fact says "Support 'Park' name".
• In this edit, Pburka says that "The reason the plot is notable is because it was once a park (and notability is not temporary)." He reiterates that here.
• In this edit, Epicgenius says "The land's use as a park is notable, which is why the article was created at that title in the first place". Later, he says: ", there is a 3 to 1 consensus right now on keeping the article at this title".

Since only 4 people have commented here, me, yourself, Epicgenius and Pburka, that is a clear 3-to-1 consensus for the article to be kept at the name "St. John's Rotary", and also that the required notability for there to be an article in the first placed is tied to the history of the space from the time it was a park. Can we agree on that? BMK (talk) 01:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

If necessary, an RfC can be opened to reach an agreement on the article title. However, it's clear, from the information already presented in the article and from other sources, that the subject's greatest use was as a park. Using "Rotary" in the title would give undue weight to the area's use as a rotary. Epicgenius (talk) 03:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Stop stonewalling

Do you people read? That would be a good start since any concept of collaboration is based on listening. Why in are you returning to a issue resolved two weeks ago? Luckily the history of the talk page is at above. I have made my position clear more than once. Read it and get it once and for all. Move on and stop wasting time and effort with these repetitive re-hashings about consensus to which my editing conforms. Address the problems with the article as it's written, namely the construction of the lead and the consensus reached as to the presentation of the material in the rotary section. They are clearly outlined on this page. If you want to "start over", agree to stop with disruptive tactics previously employed and stop stonewalling by dragging out this discussion with your red herrings. If don't want to engage in a normal editing process, then recuse yourself from working on the page. Djflem (talk) 08:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

When you say "returning to an issue resolved two weeks ago", does that mean that you agree that the consensus is that the article should stay at the name "St. John's Park" and that the focus of the article should be on the history of the land? Getting a clear answer about that would, I think, be very helpful.

Also, in the spirit of "starting over", could you please try to avoid personalizing the issue by using phrases like "stop stonewalling", "do you people read"and "using disruptive tactics"? That, too, would help keep things from returning to the state we were in before the article was locked, and it would be appreciated. (BTW, how can anyone be "stonewalling" when the article is still locked and we can't edit it?)

Now, about the lede - very many things have been written by both of us about it. Again, in the spirit of starting over (and this is one of the reasons I thought archiving the talk page would be a good idea), could you reiterate, as concisely as you can, the problems you see in the lede? I'll try to address them as best I can. BMK (talk) 10:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

BTW, given the recent events that got this page locked in the first place, I don't think there's any harm in taking this slowly and as meticulously as possible, to avoid misunderstandings. After all, there is no deadline to finish Wikipedia. BMK (talk) 10:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Compromise lede?

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I sense some impatience on your part, so I took the liberty of looking at your suggested lede from above, and the lede currently in the article. I will confess that I see absolutely nothing wrong with the current lede, but I know you feel quite differently about it, so, in the spirit of collaboration, I took your lede and made some minor changes to it. Perhaps this is a lede everyone can live with. (I'm leaving out the obvious references and wikilinks for ease of reading.):

St. John's Park is a plot of land in the TriBeCa neighborhood of Lower Manhattan, New York City bounded by Varick Street, Laight Street, Hudson Street and Beach Street, also known for that block as Ericsson Place. It is no longer a park.

The land was part of a plantation owned by an early settler to New Netherland and was later owned by the English crown, which deeded it to Trinity Church. The church built St. John's Chapel and laid out Hudson Square, creating New York City's first development of townhouses around a private park. By 1827 the neighborhood had become known as "St. John's Park" and remained fashionable until about 1850. In 1866 it was sold to the Hudson River Railway Company and became the location of "St. John's Park Freight Depot", the railroad's southern terminus.

The terminal was demolished in 1927 to allow construction of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey's Holland Tunnel. The plot now accommodates a cluster of exits which sort traffic coming from the tunnel, and is not legally accessible to pedestrians. A pedestrian bridge provides access over the roadway.

What does everyone think? BMK (talk) 10:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I think, instead of writing "It is no longer a park", you should write "The land, formerly a park, now accommodates a cluster of exits which sort traffic coming from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey's Holland Tunnel". Then, in paragraph 3: "'The terminal was demolished in 1927 to allow construction of the Holland Tunnel. The interior of the plot is not legally accessible to pedestrians." Epicgenius (talk) 14:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, that seems reasonable. BMK (talk) 17:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Now that I think about it a bit more, doesn't that give too much weight to the current status, when we've been talking about the history of the space being paramount? I think that's why I went for an entirely historical structure for the lede. BMK (talk) 18:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Oops. I was thinking about expanding the short sentence "It is no longer a park" when I posted the above. How about: "Despite its name and its historical use as parkland, it is no longer a park." or something similar? Epicgenius (talk) 21:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, how about this (with a couple of other changes):

St. John's Park is a plot of land in the TriBeCa neighborhood of Lower Manhattan, New York City bounded by Varick Street, Laight Street, Hudson Street and Beach Street, also known for that block as Ericsson Place. Despite its name, it is no longer a park, and is legally inaccesible to the public.

The land was part of a plantation owned by an early settler to New Netherland and was later owned by the English crown, which deeded it to Trinity Church. The church built St. John's Chapel and laid out Hudson Square, creating New York City's first development of townhouses around a private park. By 1827 the neighborhood had become known as "St. John's Park" and remained fashionable until about 1850. In 1866 it was sold to the Hudson River Railway Company and became the location of "St. John's Park Freight Depot", the railroad's southern terminus. The terminal was demolished in 1927 to allow construction of exits from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey's Holland Tunnel.

How's that? BMK (talk) 04:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's better. Epicgenius (talk) 04:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Article, including lead, should be free of original research/syntheisis

The above proposed lead is getting there and as one can see is nearly identical to the one I proposed and BMK reverted 4x on January 14th. But unfortunately still contains original research specifically Wikipedia:SYNTHESIS since it does not accurately cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. As seen below the article is in direct contradiction to itself leading one to wonder, which is true and devoid of manipulation of facts?

St. John's Park is a plot of land owned in the TriBeCa neighborhood of Lower Manhattan, New York City bounded by Varick Street, Laight Street, Hudson Street and Beach Street, also known for that block as Ericsson Place.

OR

The inner portion of the plaza, inside the rotary, is still referred to as "St. John's Park" and appears on Google Maps as such, but it is not legally accessible to pedestrians.

As one sees the description of the "plot" in the first paragraph describes St. John's Park as the city block, which is the site of the rotary, while the lower paragraph clearly states that the "plot" is bounded by the rotary itself. Obviously this is a serious problem. As BMK stated the AIA is "a highly authoritative". In fact s/he bases the whole premise of the article on it and since it is only truly reliable one to support the the unusual claim that "St John's Park is a plot of land" it is best to stay strictly close to the source which states: "The circular wasteland within the Holland Tunnel Exit Rotary is still called "St. John's Park".

(For the moment we can leave aside the issue here that could also raise questions about reliability since (at least partly, if not completely Usergenerated) Google Maps reference contains contradictions, labelling the interior of the rotary as St. John's Park as an outdoor sports and play plus rec area, which is yet again in contradiction to the Wikimedia Commons reference of a picture produced by BMK of a No Tresspassing sign.)

St. John's Park is a plot of land within the Holland Tunnel Exit Rotary in the TriBeCa neighborhood of Lower Manhattan, New York City. it is no longer a park and is legally inaccesible to the public.

The land was part of a plantation owned by an early settler to New Netherland and was later owned by the English crown, which deeded it to Trinity Church. The church built St. John's Chapel and laid out Hudson Square, creating New York City's first development of townhouses around a private park. By 1827 the neighborhood had become known as "St. John's Park" and remained fashionable until about 1850. In 1866 it was sold to the Hudson River Railway Company and became the location of "St. John's Park Freight Depot", the railroad's southern terminus. The terminal was demolished in 1927 to allow construction of an exit plaza for traffic leaving the Holland Tunnel. The plaza is bounded by Varick Street, Laight Street, Hudson Street and Ericsson Place, and like the tunnel, is owned and operated by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

Above is most straightforward NPOV, no OR, verifiable choice for lead, solidly supported by references. Despite is a weasel word. Quibbles about Beach Street and Ericsson Place in the "block bounded" section part can be better dealt with rotary section since it is a non-essetntial detail. Djflem (talk) 09:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

References

• Unfortunately, by referring to the "Holland Tunnel Rotary" in the lede sentence, the above suggested lede is not harmonious with the previously agreed upon talk page consensus outlined a couple of sections above, that the focus of the article should be on the history of the land, and not on the tunnel exits. It also defines "St. Johh's Park" merely as the interior of the roadway, when, in fact it is historically the name for the entire block, and, again, it's the history which needs to be controlling.

  For these reasons, I still prefer the lede that Epicgenius and I agreed on above, which is, as you say "straightforward NPOV, no OR, verifiable", as well as being in conformity with the previously ahreed consensus in that it does not give WP:UNDUE weight to the tunnel exits -- which are essentially non-notable, despite their existence since 1927. They are, after all, simply highway exits.

  Do you have a suggested lede which conforms to the agreed upon consensus? BMK (talk) 12:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• Also, regarding my photograph of the "No trespassing sign": although I took the photograph, and made it available on Commons, it is the Port Authority which "published" the sign itself, by mounting it on the fence which surrounds the majority of the roadway. It is for this reason that it is a reliable source, as the Port Authority can certainly speak for what their own regulations are regarding access to the roadway amd its interior. My photo is simply a report of their posted policy. BMK (talk) 12:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
• Regarding the ownership of the land by the Port Authority: to the best of my knowledge, in our articles we generally do not report on who owns the land under highways and highway exits, so I see no compelling need to do so here. This is why I moved the mention of the Port Authority to the expression "the Port Authoiryt of New York and New Jersey's Holland Tunnel". BMK (talk) 12:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
• Also, per WP:LEDE, as long as the facts in the lede are also reported and cited in the body of the article, there is no requirement that they be cited in the lede as well, since the lede is a general summary of the significant contents of the body. BMK (talk) 12:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• 1. Have you carefully read the problem presented above? It addresses the issue: "What do the references say?" and "Do they support the claims made?" as well as contradictions in the lead and body
• 2. Unfortunately, while you prefer the lede that Epicgenius and you agreed on, it contains Wikipedia:Synthesis and makes an unverifiable claim
• 3. There is no consensus to ignore Wikipedia policies and there can be no consensus made to ignore Wikipedia policies.
• 4 I suggest contacting Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads to clarify any doubts you may have, but it's irrelevant here since the "plot of land" known as St; James Park is owned by the PANYNJ (as well as the roadway within which it is located and the entire city block)
• 5. I've inquired as to whether the use of Wikipedia Commons in this case is considered by the community to be a reliable reference.
• 6. I understand the guidelines Wikipedia:LEDE with regards to citations. I've included links here for the benefit of the discussion. Why did you include them in the namespace lead?
• Djflem (talk) 00:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I believe you to be quite incorrect, there is no synthesis or OR in the consensus lede agreed to by Epicgenius and myself.

Reading a "No trespassing" sign is not "OR", it's precisely the equivalent of reading a book, and then citing the book. As far as I'm concerned, simply citing the existence of the "No trespassing" sign is sufficient for a reference that shows that the Port Authority has deemed the land to be legally inaccessible to pedestrians; the photograph is simply there as verification. BMK (talk) 00:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your statement at WP:RSN gives the wrong impression about the "No trespassing" sign, and ignores what Pburka posted here on January 10, here and here. I have responded there to give what I believe to be a clearer presentation to the editors at RSN. BMK (talk) 01:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• I draw you attention to the banner above to remind you that this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the St. John's Park page. While everyone is welcome to believe what they want, discussing his/her choices is of little value if there is no compelling supportive material. Since that discussion does little to propel a discourse as how bring the article to a higher Wikipedia standard, may I suggest we keep the discussion on target and stick to the facts? (I will remind you that avoiding substantive discussion is considered Stonewalling and that if you do not wish to discuss the problem in a substantive way, it might be better to recuse yourself from editing this article.) The banner also specifically reiterates basic policies: no original research, neutral point of view and verifiability. So please address these questions so that we might proceed (if you so choose).

• 1.Does the source say "within the Holland Tunnel Exit Rotary is still called "St. John's Park"? (YES)
• 2.Does the source say "bounded by Varick Street, Laight Street, Hudson Street and Beach Street, also known for that block as Ericsson Place" (NO)
• 3.Does the claim made in your lead contradict the statement made in the rotary section of the article? (YES)
• 4.Does saying plot of land "bounded by Varick Street, Laight Street, Hudson Street and Beach Street, also known for that block as Ericsson Place" without providing a reference constitute original research? (YES)
• 5.Are the plot of land known as St. James Park, the rotary road enclosing it, and the city block that comprises the tunnel exit plaza owned and operated by the PANYNJ? (YES)

I trust that you would agree that the above are indisputable facts, and despite your denial to the contrary, the lead you prefer contains OR. If you've come up with something not based on your beliefs, personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions and can substantiate it, please do.Djflem (talk) 17:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• May I suggest for the good order any further comments regarding the use of the Wikimedia Commons reference be directed to that thread on this page?Djflem (talk) 17:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• OK, I really don't acccept the bulk of your opinions above (for instance, the maps mentioned in the article show the street boundaries of the historical park, so that can easily be sourced), but for the sake of colloboraton and peace, let me take your last suggested lede and make some adjustments to it to bring it in line with the consensus previous agreed upon here.

  St. John's Park is a plot of land in the Tribeca neighborhood of Manhattan, New York City bounded by Varick Street, Laight Street, Hudson Street and Ericsson Place (Beach Street). It is no longer a park and is inaccessible to the public.

  The land was part of a plantation owned by an early settler to New Netherland and was later owned by the English crown, which deeded it to Trinity Church. The church built St. John's Chapel and laid out Hudson Square, creating New York City's first development of townhouses around a private park. By 1827 the neighborhood had become known as "St. John's Park" and remained fashionable until about 1850. In 1866 it was sold to the Hudson River Railway Company and became the location of "St. John's Park Freight Depot", the railroad's southern terminus. The terminal was demolished in 1927 to allow construction of an exit plaza for traffic leaving the Holland Tunnel.

  Comments? BMK (talk) 20:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think that editors should collaborate to add false information to Wikipedia, which (since there are no citations provided) is what you seem to be suggesting. So, no, please don't try to enlist me in your efforts to do so. Your response doesn't make it possible to ascertain or establish whether you find the most basic facts to be true. Can you clarify very specifically? If you don't then please state why and present the evidence to disprove them as per Wikipedia:BURDEN. As you've noticed and we have discussed I've added the several references to this thread to expedite the discussion. This is not a courtesy but an obligation when trying to determine if an article and its lead contains OR/synthesis and if the information is verifiable. Additionally, again with burden in mind, can you provide the the citations for the maps to which you are referring which are so easily sourced? And could please stop pussyfooting around? Are you going to address the contradictions clearly laid out at the top of this thread or not? Djflem (talk) 23:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• There is no "false information" in that suggested lede. BMK (talk) 01:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The matter is posted at: Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#St. John's Park..Djflem (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Clarification of consensus

• And, actually, the very first thing we need to establish is:

  Do you acknowledge that there is a talk page consensus that the focus of this article should be on the history of the land, and not on the Holland Tunnel exits, that the notability of the subject is tied to its history, and that the Holland Tunnel exits are not, of themselves, notable?,

  as per the diffs I posted a few days ago from the discussion above on this page. Until we've got that straightened out, I feel as if we're likely to keep going around in circles. BMK (talk) 03:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree, that a large part of what makes the Holland Tunnel Exit Plaza, the Holland Tunnel Rotary, and the circular wasteland still referred to as St John's Park, notable is having such an illustrious past. It's quite remarkable that the name (from which this article takes its title) persisted for so long considering the square itself only lasted for about 70 years and that the church was demolished almost a 100 years ago. The terminal of the same name located there for 50 years until 1927 naturally helped to perpetuate it. (Lot's old-timers still even use Bedloe's Island). And yes, I agree, that the article should focus on the history of the land. It pretty much does that, doesn't it? The overall structure and the basics are there, but there are some details that need looking at. Generally:

• Lead: Some decent Wikipedia:LEADFOLLOWSBODY options presented but Wikipedia:Synthesis still unresolved.
• Colonial era: No reference for Lispenard Meadows, chronology and other details a little off but mostly OK
• Trinity era: Basically there
• Neighborhood: Well not actually about the piece of land, but appropriate for a historical survey
• HRR era: name should be mentioned earlier if going to say the name was used for it successor terminal. Again not strictly about the land, but relevant background, economic, and cityscape info
• PANYNJ era; ref a bit unclear as to when exactly the rotary opened, language about "legally" needs to be fixed, and other POV issues. Best to use this version achieved through consensus through editing on Jan 10th since this is about consensus.Djflem (talk) 22:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, you're answering questions which I didn't ask, and which are ancillary to the current problem, which is paramount. We can talk about all these things you mention, but first we must establish whether you acknowledge that there is an active, standing talk page consensus.

  The basis of Wikipedia is that disputes between editors are settled by discussion on the talk page until a consensus has been reached, and -- at least until the consensus changes, which can happen -- that consensus is then in force, and editors working on that article must conform to it. Thus, I'm not at this point interested in whether you agree with the consensus, or whether you think that the consensus makes some interesting points, or anything else. What I need to know, in order to determie whether it's possible for us to collaborate, is that you acknowledge that there is a talk page consensus that the article should be about the history of the land, that the name of the article should be "St. John's Park", and that the notability of the subject matter in the article is about the history, and not about the existence of the Holland Tunnel exits.

  That's it, that's all we have to establish right now, and then we can move on to other things. Please indicate in your next response, hopefully without digression into other topics, whether you acknowledge that talk page consensus or not. Thanks. BMK (talk) 23:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's review the comments from other editors:

• "The roads around the park/square may well be known as St. John's Rotary but the area within is St. John's Park. The "rotary" name seems to be uncommon, while the name of the park appears in many historical documents as well as on Google Maps (Bing and MapQuest don't name it). I think that the article should retain its current name as the most common name for this feature, but inclusion of the rotary name is fine." Pburka (talk) 23:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• "It doesn't matter that it's not a park today. It was a park in the past, and that name still appears to be used for the (now inaccessible) plot of land. I propose that if the plot had never been a park and public square it would not warrant an article. Were it only a series of roads leading to and from the Holland Tunnel we might include a mention of it in that article, but it's unlikely it would have its own page. The reason the plot is notable is because it was once a park (and notability is not temporary)." Pburka (talk) 03:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• "Most of the article, as it stands, talks about the historical use, which is a park. We could move it to "St. John's Rotary" if we have more details in the article about the rotary than about the site's historical use, and if the rotary, not the park, was the main use for the land. However, the plot has been used as a rotary only recently, and the rotary itself is not very notable, as any other entrance/exit plaza for a bridge or tunnel would be. By contrast, the land's use as a park is notable, which is why the article was created at that title in the first place." Epicgenius (talk) 13:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)]
• "Most of the article, as it stands, talks about the historical use, which is a park. We could move it to "St. John's Rotary" if we have more details in the article about the rotary than about the site's historical use, and if the rotary, not the park, was the main use for the land. However, the plot has been used as a rotary only recently, and the rotary itself is not very notable, as any other entrance/exit plaza for a bridge or tunnel would be. By contrast, the land's use as a park is notable, which is why the article was created at that title in the first place." Epicgenius (talk) 13:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)]
• "There is only one thing notable about the highway exit: its history as a park and a railway depot. Contemporary sources and maps continue to call the space St. John's Park, and the rotary isn't notable. That the park is no longer much of a park is irrelevant, as notability is not temporary." Pburka (talk) 03:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC).
• "In the above section, there is a 3 to 1 consensus right now on keeping the article at this title. If you feel otherwise, open a WP:RFC about the page title." Epicgenius (talk) 03:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you acknowledge? The consensus is that title of the article be based on the name of the (now inaccessible) plot of land within the rotary, and that the article is and should be a history of that land, which is notable because it was once a park and rail depot. Djflem (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry that it has come to this. I opened this section of the talk page while the article was locked with a sincere offer to collaborate with you for the good of the article, and to that end I have tentatively agreed to about 95% of your suggested changes to the lede, however every time I do, your raise more issues about the very wording that you presented, moving the goalposts each time. This question, however, is something that I cannot compromise on. I am not able to collaborate with an editor who will not affirm that they will follow basic Wikipedia policy regarding WP:CONSENSUS. So, for, I'm afraid, the very last time, Do you acknowledge that there is a standing and active talk page consensus that the article should be about the history of the land, that the name of the article should be "St. John's Park", and that the notability of the subject matter in the article is about the history, and not about the existence of the Holland Tunnel exits?

A yes or no answer would be appreciated. Thank you. BMK (talk) 03:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Let me try to explain my conundrum. If we're collaborating together, we're doing so in order to reach a consensus. Now, "consensus" isn't the same thing as "compromise", but by each compromising a little, we hopefully will reach something we can all live with, and there is our consensus. Once that is reached, editing to the article should reflect it, at least until the consensus changes, if it does, but edits which are not inline with the consensus need to be altered, if possible, or reverted.

Given this, I need to know that the person I'm collaborating with will respect the consensus that's been reached, and edit in harmony with it -- but how can I be assured of that if the editor won't affirm that they will respect the previously reached consensus, or even acknowledge its existence? As recently as six days ago, you wrote

"For whatever reasons, (and I don't care what they are) it seems you are operating under the misconception that since a consensus was reached that the article be named "St. John's Park" and it be focused on the history of the plot of land (your words, repeated numerous times and the opening sentence of the article, which you wrote) somehow gives you control of the page."

That was not accurate, as I hope you realize now since I posted the diffs for the comments which established the consensus. There is a consensus, I was not acting unilaterally, and I was not under a "misconception".

So your continued unwillingness to acknowledge that consensus and affirm that you will follow it leaves me little choice. If I can't trust you to follow the existing consensus, then I can't trust you to follow any consensus that we may have happened to reach. This is why, unless you can adopt that consensus and pledge to follow it -- whether or not you agree with it -- then I see little hope ofr a continuing collaboration on this article. BMK (talk) 21:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Please don't add section headers ex post facto, as you did with "Clarification of Consensus", which you put directly between two already-posted comments of mine. If you want to add a header on top of your own comment when you post, that's a different matter. My opinion is that you do it too often, and make it more difficult to follow the flow of the discussion, but that's just my opinion. BMK (talk) 21:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for posting the block quote above.(adding a link to the context in which the statement was made, as you have elsewhere, would have been nice.) I'm sorry if it was confusing for you, but I'll clarify:

since a consensus was reached that the article be named "St. John's Park" and it be focused on the history of the plot of land is an acknowledgement of a consensus

you are operating under the misconception that since a consensus was reached…... somehow gives you control of the page. is a comment about what in IMO is your attitude of ownership. Djflem (talk) 16:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

By the way, I add the sub header just because this longish thread is such a different subject than the OR issue. Djflem (talk) 23:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Definition

The opening phrase to the article, written by BMK, clearly states "St.John's Park is a plot of land….". BMK also wrote "The inner portion of the plaza, inside the rotary, is still referred to as "St. John's Park". Am I mistaken in the belief that the person who wrote the Wikipedia:LEADPARAGRAPH believes that St.John's Park is a plot of land?

Simple straight forward question: Does BMK stand by the statements published on Wikipedia that defines the topic of the article? If so, then we can proceed. Otherwise, as BMK has said, the discussion will continue, to go in circles.

Based on what BMK has published, Pburka's contributions to the discussion, and supporting references, I understand the definition of the article as described in the opening phrase and in a later subsection.

Is there any reason why anyone should not take the statements on their face value? Djflem (talk) 11:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel you need to Wikilawyer about this instead of acknowledging a simple and obvious talk page consensus. It seems clear to me now that you actually have no real intention to work together with me for the good of the article, so I'm forced to withdraw my suggestion that we actively collaborate.

This does not mean that I am withdrawing from editing the article. Per WP:CONSENSUS, I will continue to review edits to make sure that they are in harmony with the talk page consensus that has already been established, and which is obvious to any reasonable and unbiased reader of this talk page. BMK (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Didn't bode well from the start. (Your statements on Jan 5 "I don't know why you link to WP:V, which really has nothing to do with this issue." [2] and "There's no question about verifiability here" [3] on Jan 6th were not a promising beginning for collaboration.) The declaration on Jan 24, "There is no "false information" in that suggested lede" [4] regarding an inquiry about original research and verifiability and reticence to address the problem clearly presented above and now at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#St. John's Park do not strike me as willing or good faith. I had hoped that it was it understood that [5] that burden of proof is standard protocol and a serious matter at Wikipedia. Djflem (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Your argument about WP:V has always puzzled me on this page. It is clear from all of the sources that St. John's Park was a verifiable and notable park, and a number of sources clearly demonstrate that the plot continues to be identified by that name. The park (or what's left of it) is now enclosed by a quite ordinary traffic rotary of borderline independent notability at best. I'm a stickler for original research, and there's nothing in this article that gives me particular concern. If I understand your concerns (and I don't think I do) you believe that the article should focus on the rotary, since that's the current use of the space. If this is correct, I'd be happy to explain again why I disagree. If I'm incorrect, please explain concisely what your concern is. Pburka (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Hudson Square link

I added an inline link to Hudson Square. Should this be a hatnote instead? Epic Genius (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that's a better idea than having it in the text. BMK (talk) 23:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I added a hatnote. It may need to be fixed, though. Epic Genius (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I've tweaked the wording and combined it with the hatnote above to minimize space. BMK (talk) 00:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks better now; thanks. Epic Genius (talk) 01:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Archive 1